final smart act, due 070119 · 1. hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an...

22
Performance Plan July 01, 2019 Office of the State Public Defender MEGAN A. RING Colorado State Public Defender

Upload: others

Post on 11-Jul-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

Performance Plan July 01, 2019

Office of the State Public Defender

MEGAN A. RING Colorado State Public Defender

Page 2: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

Table of Contents

Performance Plan

Strategic Component Mission.......................................................................................... 1 Vision ............................................................................................ 1 History and Description ................................................................ 1

Trial Office Map ................................................................. 4 Functional Organizational Chart ........................................ 5 Organizational Chart .......................................................... 6

Operational Component/Processes Operational Processes ................................................................... 7 Goals, Strategies and Measures .................................................... 7 Performance Evaluation................................................................ 10 Performance Measures.................................................................. 19

Page 3: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

1

Strategic Component

Mission The mission of the Office of the State Public Defender is to defend and protect the rights, liberties, and dignity of those accused of crimes who cannot afford to retain counsel. We do so by providing constitutionally and statutorily mandated representation that is effective, zealous, inspired and compassionate.

OSPD Enabling Legislation: The general assembly hereby declares that the state public defender at all times shall serve his clients independently of any political considerations or private interest, provide legal services to indigent persons accused of crime that are commensurate with those available to nonindigents, and conduct the office in accordance with the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct and with the American Bar Association standards relating to the administration of criminal justice, the defense function. C.R.S. 21-1-101(1)

Vision The Office of the State Public Defender’s vision is to develop, maintain and support our passionate and dedicated team so that they can continue providing the best possible quality of effective and efficient criminal defense representation for each and every one of our clients.

History In 1963, the United States Supreme Court issued Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), ensuring the right of the indigent accused to representation of counsel in criminal cases. During this same year, the Colorado General Assembly passed the Colorado Defender Act in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon. This Act authorized Colorado counties to either establish a public defender’s office or remain under the previous ad hoc system of appointing counsel for indigent citizens accused of criminal offenses. Four county public defender offices were established under the Act. These offices were located in Denver, Brighton, Pueblo and Durango. In 1969, the State Legislature passed the Administrative Re-Organization Act. Pursuant to this Act, the State began to oversee the court system, which assumed responsibility for the appointment and funding of counsel for indigent defendants. The Office of the State Public Defender was created and became an independent state agency in 1970.

Description The Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD) is a single purpose program that is devoted to providing reasonable and effective criminal defense representation to indigent persons charged with crimes except where there is a conflict of interest. Our clients are indigent people who face the possibility of incarceration, are unable to afford private counsel and without counsel would otherwise be denied their constitutional right to representation throughout the criminal

Page 4: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

2

proceedings. A critical element in meeting these requirements is the need to maintain the attorney-client relationship. Attorneys, investigators and legal support staff are necessary to provide effective representation of counsel as mandated by the federal and state constitutions, Colorado Revised Statutes, Colorado Court Rules, American Bar Association standards, and the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. The OSPD system is the most efficient means of meeting these requirements. The OSPD is an independent agency within the Judicial Branch of Colorado State Government. The Court makes the appointment when a defendant qualifies for public defender services pursuant to statute, applicable case law and Chief Justice Directives. In order to fulfill our responsibility in criminal proceedings, our office operates as a single purpose program which works with cases heard at two different levels of the state court system – the trial court level and the appellate court level. The trial court offices maintain 21 regional trial offices which cover the State’s 22 judicial districts and 64 counties. See the Trial Office Map on page 4. The appellate office supports statewide indigent criminal cases heard at the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The staff in these offices are entirely devoted to the processing of cases as assigned by the court. All administrative and support functions for these offices are handled centrally through the State Administrative Office in Denver. See the OSPD Functional Organization Chart on page 5. The Public Defender System is directed at the state level by the Colorado State Public Defender, Megan A. Ring. A State Administrative Office provides centralized, state-wide administrative services and coordinates all office support functions to assist our regional trial offices and appellate division in providing services to clients. The administrative functions delivered by the State Administrative Office include: all program direction, analysis, and planning, including statistical compilation and development; workforce development, training, personnel policy, compensation analysis and practice

development, and payroll and benefits coordination and administration; legislative affairs and statutory analysis; intragovernmental and intergovernmental affairs; budget analysis, development, allocation and management; financial management, analysis, tracking, transaction processing, procurement, and

accounting; facilities planning, development, and lease negotiating; contracts and grants management; and development, distribution and maintenance of the agency’s computer information and

telecommunication systems. To support the OSPD in the representation of their FY 2019-20 projected caseload, the OSPD was appropriated $ 107,392,415 and 889 FTE. This is comprised of approximately 535 attorneys; 179 investigators / legal assistants (including 13 social workers); 132 administrative assistants and 43 centralized management and support positions. See the Organization Chart on page 6.

Page 5: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

3

Environmental Scan While our primary function of providing criminal defense representation will not change, the criminal justice environment in which we operate is changing. For example, caseload continues to grow and the cases that we handle are becoming more complex. This is reflected in an increase in both the number and severity of charges.

Many other factors have compounded these case growth trends adding increasing complexity to the types of cases and the workload required to represent these cases. These changes compound existing workload conditions to make it more difficult and time consuming for attorneys to provide effective representation, including changes in the court such as:

staffing, docket organization, the use of specialty courts, changes in prosecutorial practice and procedures; newly enacted criminal offenses; changes in classes of criminal offenses; changes in criminal penalties; changes to the time it takes to process a case; changes in the types, quality, complexity and quantity of evidence; and the history and documentation associated with a case.

This changing environment presents a compounding challenge to The Office’s need to achieve the staffing levels that are required to provide effective representation.

Constitutional, Statutory and other authority

Constitutional, Statutory and other authority for the OSPD is established pursuant to: U.S. CONSTITUTION AMEND. VI; COLO. CONST. Art. II, § 16; C.R.S. § 21-1-101 et seq.; Chief Justice Directive 04-04, as amended; ABA STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE; Colo. Rules of Professional Conduct (Colo. RPC); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002); Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191; Nikander v. District Court, 711 P.2d 1260 (Colo. 1986); Allen v. People, 157 Colo. 582, 404 P.2d 266 (1965); and In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).

Page 6: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

4

Trial Office Map

Page 7: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

5

Functional Organization Chart

Administrative Services 

Training and Trial Support 

Page 8: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

6

Office  of the State Public Defender  Organizational Chart

Lucienne OhanianChief Deputy

Tina FangChief Deputy

Karen PorterChief Financial 

Officer

Kyle HughesChief  Information

Officer

Alamosa  Trial Office, 12th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Jamie Keairns

Office ManagerAngelica  Hart

Arapahoe  Trial  Office, 18th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

James Karbach

Office ManagerCheryl Healy

Boulder Trial  Office, 20th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Nicole Collins

Office ManagerElizabeth  Cantor

Brighton Trial  Office, 17th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Sarah  Quinn

Office ManagerSarah  Petty

Colorado Springs Trial Office, 4th Judicial 

District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Rosalie Roy

Office ManagerNorie Spooner

Denver  Trial Office, 2nd Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Demetria Trujillo

Office ManagerClaudia  Duran

Dillon Trial  Office, 5th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Thea Reiff

Office ManagerMeghan Layfield

Douglas Trial  Office, 18th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Ara  Ohanian

Office ManagerAmy  Mendigorin

Durango Trial Office, 6th & 22nd Judicial 

Districts

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Justin Bogan

Office ManagerTuesday Puls

Fort Collins Trial Office, 8th Judicial 

District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Kathryn  Hay

Office ManagerKarlee Gettman

Glenwood Springs Trial  Office, 9th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Scott Troxell

Office ManagerVeronica Ulloa

Golden Trial Office, 1st Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Mitchell Ahnstedt

Office ManagerSara  Bollig

Grand Junction Trial Office, 21st Judicial 

District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Steve Colvin

Office ManagerLorie Kerr

Greeley  Trial Office, 19th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Michele Newell

Office ManagerTerri Cook

La  Junta Trial  Office, 15 & 16th Judicial 

Districts

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Raymond  Torrez

Office ManagerRaquel Romero

Montrose Trial Office, 7th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Kori Zapletal

Office ManagerVal  Barnica

Pueblo Trial  Office, 10th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Albert Singleton

Office ManagerMarisa  Herrera

Salida  Trial Office, 11th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Daniel Zettler

Office ManagerCarol Mattson

Steamboat  Springs Trial  Office, 14th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Sheryl Uhlmann

Office ManagerErin Biggs

Sterling  Trial  Office, 13th Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Brian  Johnson

Office ManagerMandy Scoular

Trinidad Trial  Office, 3rd Judicial District

Regional  Trial Office Chief

Patrick  McCarville

Office ManagerJuanita  Gonzalez

REGIONAL  TRIAL  OFFICES

Appellate  Office

Appellate  Division Chief

Jason Middleton

Office ManagerJenèe Bowden

APPELLATE

Megan A. RingState  Public Defender

Karen TaylorFirst Assistant Public 

Defender

Page 9: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

7

People Process Product

Operational Component/Processes

Goals, Strategies and Measures

In order to achieve our mission of providing high-quality, effective criminal defense representation for each of our clients, the OSPD ensures that our goals, strategies and measures addressed our people, our process and our product.

To this end, we have developed three overarching goals, five strategies and nineteen measures, all focused on improving service to our customers. We continue to analyze and further refine the concepts included in this document throughout the year using a variety of platforms, topics such as juvenile defense, performance ratings, attrition and office staffing.

Although we have multiple connections among our goals, strategies and measures, they all tie directly to our vision and our mission. Furthermore, as part of our organizational infrastructure planning, these components are continually being reviewed and further refined.

Goals:

1. Hire and retain a sufficient number of high quality staff to effectively manage the assigned caseload.

2. Provide both high quality and sufficient quantity of staff development, training, new technology and other resources to adapt our response to the ever-changing landscape and criminal justice atmosphere so that our legal services are commensurate with what is available for non-indigent clients.

3. Provide effective legal representation in both trial court and appellate cases.

Strategies:

1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload.

Page 10: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

8

2. Track and analyze trends in caseloads and adjust staffing levels. 3. Provide trainings to address the changing legal climate and reach critical staff. 4. Continually evaluate administrative processes and organizational infrastructure needs such

as office space, technology and staffing. 5. Work all cases as efficiently as possible, while retaining a high quality of effective

and reasonable representation. Measures:

Input

1. Number of new trial court cases. 2. Number of active trial court cases. 3. Percent of trial court attorney staff allocated vs. total required for closed trial court cases. 4. Number of attorney applications received. 5. Percent of total attorney staff allocated versus total required for closed trial court cases

and active appellate cases. 6. Annual rates of attrition. 7. Percent of experienced, fully capable staff. 8. Percent compliance with minimum standards for total staffing requirements. 9. Maintain established standard percentages for reasonable staff supervision,

management and development. 10. Number of new appellate cases. 11. Number of active appellate cases (cases awaiting filing of Opening Brief). 12. Percent of appellate attorney staff allocated vs. total required for active appellate cases.

Output

13. Number of trial court cases closed. 14. Days of training provided. 15. Number of CLE credit hours provided. 16. Hours of ethics training provided, focusing on Colorado criminal law. 17. Number of administrative processes and organizational infrastructure

evaluations performed. 18. Number of appellate cases for which an Opening Brief has been filed. 19. Number of backlogged appellate cases.

To see a pictorial representation of the relationships among our mission, vision, goals, strategies and measures. See our Performance Planning Structure on page 9.

Page 11: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

9

Performance Planning Structure  

 

 

 

  

   

input: 

 

 

    

 output: 

  

 

The single overriding role of the Office of the State Public Defender is to fulfill the requirements outlined in the United States and Colorado Constitutions as well asin Colorado Statutes, which establish the right to a level of criminal defense counsel services for indigent individuals charged with the commission of a crime in Colorado that is commensurate with the level of services available to those that are not indigent. 

To Office of the State Public Defender's vision is to develop, maintain and support our passionate and dedicated team so that they can continue providing the best possible quality of criminal defense representation for each and every one of our clients. 

Hire and retain a sufficient number of high quality staff to effectively manage the assigned caseload. 

Provide both high quality and sufficient quantity of staff development, training, new technology and other resources to adapt our response to the ever‐changing landscape and criminal justice atmosphere so that our legal services are commensurate with what is available for non‐indigent clients. 

Provide effective legal representation in both trial court and appellate cases. 

Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload. 

Track and analyze trends in caseloads and adjust staffing levels. 

Provide trainings to address the changing legal climate and reach critical staff. 

Continually evaluate administrative processes and organizational infrastructure needs such as office space, technology and staffing. 

Work all cases as efficiently as possible, while retaining a high quality of effective and reasonable representation. 

Trial Court  Appellate 

Number of active trial court cases. 

Percent of total attorney staff allocated vs. total required for closed trial court cases and active appellate cases. 

Maintain established standard percentages for reasonable staff supervision, management and development. 

Number of active appellate cases (cases awaiting filing of Opening Brief). 

Percent of trial court attorney staff allocated vs. total required for closed trial court cases. 

Annual rates of attrition. 

Percent of appellate attorney staff allocated vs. total required for active appellate cases. 

Number of CLE credit hours provided. 

Number of backlogged appellate cases. 

Hours of ethics training provided, focusing on Colorado criminal law. 

Number of new trial court cases. 

Number of attorney applications received. 

Percent compliance with minimum standards for total staffing requirements. 

Number of new appellate cases. 

Percent of experienced, fully capable staff. 

Number of trial court cases closed. 

Days of training provided. 

Number of administrative processes and organizational infrastructure evaluations performed. 

Number of appellate cases for which an Opening Brief has been filed. 

COURT

 LEVE

LS 

MEA

SURE

S STRA

TEGIES 

VISION 

MISSION 

GOAL

Page 12: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

10

Performance Evaluation REGIONAL TRIAL OFFICE CASELOAD OVERALL OSPD CASE TRENDS Total Cases. The Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD) tracks and monitors its caseload in three separate categories: new cases, closed cases and active cases. Since FY 1999-00, the OSPD has tracked its annual Caseload Rate of Growth (CRG) which had been growing steadily in the early years, peaking at about 5 percent in FY 2005-06. After that and until FY 2012-13, it decreased and had stabilized at nearly 3.2 percent. Since then, it has been steadily increasing and in FY 2017-18 the overall CRG now averages 4.4 percent within the three categories. From FY 2013-14 until FY 2015-16, the OSPD had experienced a significant increase in its misdemeanor caseload primarily due to legislation enacted on January 1, 2014. H.B. 13-1210 (commonly known as the Rothgery bill) amended C.R.S. 16-7-301(4)(a), striking the section of law requiring defendants in misdemeanors, petty offenses and traffic offenses to first discuss plea negotiations with the prosecution prior to being assigned defense counsel. The number of these cases has now stabilized over the past couple of years. Since FY 2014-15, the OSPD has experienced an increase in its juvenile caseload, again due to recent legislation. H.B. 14-1032 (commonly known as the Juvenile Defense bill) now requires the OSPD to be present at detention hearings, allows the court to appoint the OSPD when the parents refuse to provide counsel, allows the court to appoint the OSPD when the court deems it to be in the best interest of the child, and further specifies the conditions under which a juvenile can waive counsel. Although the misdemeanor and juvenile caseloads have begun to level off, the OSPD has experienced a significant increase in its felony caseload in the past few years and as a result overall caseload continues to increase.

Overall Case Trends

Page 13: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

11

NEW CASE TRENDS New Cases. In FY 2017-18, the OSPD was appointed on 143,552 new cases, a 4.2 percent increase over last year’s 137,777 cases. The CRG for new cases since FY 1999-00 was 3.2 percent through FY 2012-13 and now has risen to 4.4 percent. The CRG for misdemeanor cases alone at 7.6 percent identifies the biggest increase is and is the direct result of the Rothgery bill.

Note: In FY 2016-17 the OSPD implemented revised case type classifications that were the result of the updated workload study and are identified in the table above. Summary totals are provided for the prior years.

CASE TYPE FY13 New

FY14 New

FY15 New

FY16 New

FY17 New

FY18 New

FY18 % Total

Cases18 Yr CRG

Felony 1 190 157 Felony 2 348 377 Sex Assault Felony 2-6 1,779 982 Felony 3 & 4 (COV) 3,144 2,003 Felony 3 & 4 (Non COV) 9,050 11,426 Felony 5 & 6 12,631 13,585 DUI Felony 4 801 741 Drug Felony 1-4 10,681 11,880

Subtotal Felony Trial and PreTrial 28,581 30,066 30,931 34,464 38,624 41,151 28.7% 3.5%Misc. Proceedings 5,224 5,375 Revocations 16,952 18,225 Appeals 32 19

Subtotal Felony Other Proccedings 18,439 20,777 20,097 21,220 22,208 23,619 16.5% 2.7%Total Felony 47,020 50,843 51,028 55,684 60,832 64,770 45.1% 3.2%

Misdemeanor Sex Offense 640 431 Misdemeanor 1 16,085 16,325 Misdemeanor 2 or 3 12,892 13,252 Misdemeanor DUI 6,122 6,759 Misdemeanor Traffic/Other 13,566 13,179

Subtotal Misd Trial and PreTrial 32,728 41,041 49,634 49,974 49,305 49,946 34.8% 7.0%Misc. Proceedings 2,793 3,347 Revocations 16,216 16,624 Appeals 225 208

Subtotal Misd Other Proccedings 11,571 16,183 18,010 18,463 19,234 20,179 14.1% 9.7%Total Misdemeanor 44,299 57,224 67,644 68,437 68,539 70,125 48.8% 7.6%

Juvenile Sex Offense 287 187 Juvenile Felony 2,263 2,398 Juvenile Misdemeanor 2,534 2,560

Subtotal Juv Trial and PreTrial 3,742 3,708 4,971 5,160 5,084 5,145 3.6% -0.6%Misc. Proceedings 985 1,258 Revocations 2,317 2,222 Appeals 20 32

Subtotal Juv Other Proccedings 3,476 3,332 3,304 3,107 3,322 3,512 2.4% -1.5%Total Juvenile 7,218 7,040 8,275 8,267 8,406 8,657 6.0% -1.0%

SummaryTotal Trial and Pretrial 65,051 74,815 85,536 89,598 93,013 96,242 67.0% 4.6%

Total Misc. Proceedings 9,002 9,980 Total Revocations 35,485 37,071 Total Appeals 277 259

Total Other Proceedings 33,486 40,292 41,411 42,790 44,764 47,310 33.0% 4.1%

Grand Total 98,537 115,107 126,947 132,388 137,777 143,552 100.0% 4.4%

OSPD Trial Office - New Cases FY13-FY18

Page 14: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

12

CLOSED CASE TRENDS Closed Cases. In FY 2017-18, the OSPD closed 141,511 cases, a 3.8 percent increase over last year’s 136,321 cases. The CRG for closed cases since FY 1999-00 was 3.2 percent through FY 2012-13 and has now risen to 4.4 percent.

Note: In FY 2016-17 the OSPD implemented revised case type classifications that were the result of the updated workload study and are identified in the table above. Summary totals are provided for the prior years.

CASE TYPE FY13

Closed FY14

Closed FY15

Closed FY16

Closed FY17

Closed FY18

Closed

FY18 % Total Cases

18 Yr CRG

Felony 1 74 97 0.1%

Felony 2 155 190 0.1%

Sex Assault Felony 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 1,333 1,279 0.9%

Felony 3 or 4 (COV) 2,203 2,288 1.6%

Felony 3 or 4 (non-COV) 6,797 7,355 5.2%

Felony 5 or 6 9,716 10,267 7.3%

DUI Felony 4 564 645 0.5%

Drug Felony 1, 2, 3 or 4 7,953 8,837 6.2%

Subtotal Felony Trial and PreTrial 21,575 22,189 23,583 25,603 28,795 30,958 21.9% 3.5%

Misc. Proceedings 4,935 5,410 3.8%

Revocations 16,876 18,017 12.7%

Appeals 31 32 0.0%

Partial Service: 8,375 8,868 6.3%

Subtotal Felony Other Proceedings 24,711 27,681 27,127 28,042 30,217 32,327 22.8% 2.9%

Total Felony 46,286 49,870 50,710 53,645 59,012 63,285 44.7% 3.2%

Misdemeanor Sex Offense 535 482 0.3%

Misdemeanor 1 13,431 13,424 9.5%

Misdemeanor 2 or 3 10,667 10,836 7.7%

Misdemeanor DUI 5,318 5,680 4.0%

Misdemeanor Traffic/Other 11,957 11,284 8.0%

Subtotal Misd Trial and PreTrial 28,421 30,815 39,344 41,612 41,908 41,706 29.5% 6.9%

Misc. Proceedings 2,768 3,111 2.2%

Revocations 16,073 16,646 11.8%

Appeals 186 206 0.1%

Partial Service: 8,000 8,103 5.7%

Subtotal Misd Other Proceedings 16,053 22,382 26,687 26,292 27,027 28,066 19.8% 9.0%

Total Misdemeanor 44,474 53,197 66,031 67,904 68,935 69,772 49.3% 7.6%

Juvenile Sex Offense 256 243 0.2%

Juvenile Felony 1,628 1,606 1.1%

Juvenile Misdemeanor 2,028 1,975 1.4%

Subtotal Juv Trial and PreTrial 3,150 2,879 3,486 4,011 3,912 3,824 2.7% -1.0%

Misc. Proceedings 926 1,235 0.9%

Revocations 2,326 2,251 1.6%

Appeals 12 25 0.0%

Partial Service: 1,198 1,119 0.8%

Subtotal Juv Other Proceedings 3,962 4,098 4,189 4,204 4,462 4,630 3.3% -1.1%

Total Juvenile 7,112 6,977 7,675 8,215 8,374 8,454 6.0% -1.1% 0.0%Summary

Total Trial and Pretrial 53,146 55,883 66,413 71,226 74,615 76,488 54.1% 4.6%

Total Misc. Proceedings 8,629 9,756 6.9%

Total Revocations 35,275 36,914 26.1%

Total Appeals 229 263 0.2%

Total Partial Service 17,573 18,090 12.8%

Total Other Proceedings 44,726 54,161 58,003 58,538 61,706 65,023 45.9% 4.2% 0.0%

Grand Total 97,872 110,044 124,416 129,764 136,321 141,511 100.0% 4.4%

OSPD Trial Office - Closed CasesFY13-FY18

Page 15: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

13

ACTIVE CASE TRENDS

Active Cases. Active caseload incorporates all cases in which the OSPD is actively representing clients in a given year: the total new cases, plus the remaining unfinished cases from prior years and therefore carried forward into the current year. In FY 2017-18, the OSPD handled 183,078 active cases, an increase of just over 4 percent over the prior year’s 175,873 cases.

Note: In FY 2016-17 the OSPD implemented revised case type classifications that were the result of the updated workload study and are identified in the table above. Summary totals are provided for the prior years.

CASE TYPE FY13 Active

FY14 Active

FY15 Active

FY16 Active

FY17 Active

FY18 Active

FY18 % Total Cases

18 yr CRG

Felony 1 242 278 0.2%Felony 2 362 421 0.2%Sex Assault Felony 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 2,390 1,761 1.0%Felony 3 or 4 (COV) 3,654 2,931 1.6%Felony 3 or 4 (non-COV) 9,912 12,133 6.6%Felony 5 or 6 13,773 14,885 8.1%DUI Felony 4 990 1,015 0.6%Drug Felony 1, 2, 3 or 4 10,970 12,187 6.7%

Subtotal Felony Trial and PreTrial 30,506 32,199 34,054 37,424 42,293 45,611 24.9% 3.9%Misc. Proceedings 6,468 6,881 3.8%Revocations 20,585 21,936 12.0%Appeals 56 53 0.0%Partial Service: 8,375 9,013 4.9%

Subtotal Felony Other Proceedings 29,385 32,251 31,540 33,163 35,484 37,883 20.7% 2.6%

Total Felony 59,891 64,450 65,594 70,587 77,777 83,494 45.6% 3.3%Misdemeanor Sex Offense 855 630 0.3%Misdemeanor 1 18,090 18,139 9.9%Misdemeanor 2 or 3 13,795 14,110 7.7%Misdemeanor DUI 7,805 8,227 4.5%Misdemeanor Traffic/Other 15,605 14,806 8.1%

Subtotal Misd Trial and PreTrial 37,774 43,837 53,902 56,091 56,150 55,912 30.5% 7.2%Misc. Proceedings 3,461 4,057 2.2%Revocations 18,947 19,502 10.7%Appeals 392 413 0.2%Partial Service: 8,000 8,233 4.5%

Subtotal Misd Other Proceedings 18,851 25,570 29,967 30,189 30,800 32,205 17.6% 8.2%

Total Misdemeanor 56,625 69,407 83,869 86,280 86,950 88,117 48.1% 7.5%Juvenile Sex Offense 475 387 0.2%Juvenile Felony 2,410 2,548 1.4%Juvenile Misdemeanor 2,935 3,007 1.6%

Subtotal Juv Trial and PreTrial 4,324 4,195 5,299 5,898 5,820 5,942 3.2% 0.3%Misc. Proceedings 1,185 1,513 0.8%Revocations 2,916 2,824 1.5%Appeals 27 48 0.0%Partial Service: 1,198 1,140 0.6%

Subtotal Juv Other Proceedings 4,766 4,855 5,052 5,049 5,326 5,525 3.0% -1.1%

Total Juvenile 9,090 9,050 10,351 10,947 11,146 11,467 6.3% -0.4% 0.0%Summary

Total Trial and Pretrial 72,604 80,231 93,255 99,413 104,263 107,465 58.7% 5.0%Total Misc. Proceedings 11,114 12,451 6.8%Total Probation Revocations 42,448 44,262 24.2%Total Appeals 475 514 0.3%Total Partial Service 17,573 18,386 10.0%

Other Proceedings Total 53,002 62,676 66,559 68,401 71,610 75,613 41.3% 3.8% 0.0%

GRAND TOTAL 125,606 142,907 159,814 167,814 175,873 183,078 100.0% 4.5%

OSPD Trial Office - Active CasesFY13-FY18

Page 16: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

14

CASE TYPE TRENDS Felony Cases. In FY 2017-18, the OSPD had 83,494 active felony cases, an increase of approximately 7.5 percent over the prior year. The felony case growth had peaked in FY 2005-06 when the OSPD handled 67,886 cases and had been steadily decreasing through FY 2011-12 down to 56,631. However, over the past 5 years, the OSPD has continued to experience significant increases each year, amounting to nearly a 40 percent increase in its active felony cases. The Judicial Department District Courts are also reporting significant increases and over the same timeframe have experienced approximately a 44 percent increases in their felony filings. Felony cases, primarily the Trial and Pre-trial cases, require the greatest attorney effort, time and dedication of resources. They cost the State the most money, and increasingly draw OSPD resources away from misdemeanor and juvenile defendant cases. Felony cases make up approximately 45 percent of our cases yet require 65 percent of our trial FTE resources.

Felony Case Trends

Misdemeanor Cases. Misdemeanor case growth in each category of new, closed and active caseload continued at a relatively predictable rate of 6 percent to 7 percent annual CRG through FY 2012-13, as the OSPD handled 56,625 cases. Since the Rothgery bill did not take effect until January 1, 2014, the increase in the number of active misdemeanor cases for FY 2013-14 included just six months, yet by the end of FY 2014-15 the OSPD experienced the full impact. In FY 2014-15 the number of active misdemeanor cases surged to 83,869, and in FY 2015-16 the number of active cases continued its upward trend to 86,280. While some of this is attributed to normal case growth, the impact of Rothgery is definitely the driving force. Misdemeanor caseload has now stabilized with the OSPD handling 88,117 cases in FY 2017-18. Misdemeanor cases represent about 49 percent of our total cases and require about 28 percent of our trial FTE resources.

Page 17: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

15

Misdemeanor Case Trends

Juvenile Cases. Since FY 1999-00, juvenile cases had continued to gradually decline. However, this decline has slowed since FY 2004-05, falling from a decline of about 4 percent annual CRG through FY 2004-05 to a decline of nearly 2.7 percent annual CRG through FY 2013-14. Active juvenile cases handled by the OSPD dropped slightly from 9,090 in FY 2012-13 to 9,050 in FY 2013-14, a 0.4 percent decrease. Although the juvenile caseload had dropped for almost a decade, the impact of H.B. 14-1032, the Juvenile Defense bill, has turned this around. Since November 1, 2014 when this legislation went into effect, the number of active juvenile cases rose from 9,050 in FY 2013-14 to 11,467 in FY 2017-18, nearly a 27 percent increase over the past 4 years. Juvenile cases represent about 6 percent of our total cases and require about 4 percent of our trial FTE resources.

Juvenile Case Trends

Page 18: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

16

REGIONAL TRIAL OFFICE CASELOAD

TRIAL AND PRETRIAL CASE TRENDS Trial and Pretrial closings reflect cases that are brought to a final disposition. The increase in Trial and Pretrial closings is the primary factor that drives attorney staffing needs, since these cases account for the greatest draw on attorney resources and time. The office has participated in several workload studies over the years to determine the appropriate case weights for the various types of cases in order to determine its staffing needs. The OSPD case weights are applied to Trial and Pretrial cases, as well as to revocations, which make up a large portion of the Other Proceedings. The weights take into account the time associated with all Other Proceedings. Assuming that the proportionate share of Trial and Pretrial versus Other Proceedings caseloads remain relatively constant through time, these weights will remain accurate. As seen on the chart below, this has been the case with the Trial and Pretrial averaging at 54 percent of the total cases and 46 percent for the Other Proceedings. The annual CRG for Trial and Pretrial cases closed had grown at a rate of 3.5 percent through FY 2012-13. As of the end of FY 2017-18, the CRG has now increased to 4.6 percent.

REGIONAL TRIAL OFFICE CASELOAD OTHER PROCEEDINGS TRENDS Overall Other Proceedings had grown at a rate of about 2.9 percent annually through FY 2012-13. As of FY 2017-18, it has now increased to 4.2 percent. The Other Proceedings category includes all revocations, Rule 35(b) sentence reconsiderations, Rule 35(c) hearings, extradition matters, and other miscellaneous proceedings. Other Proceedings may also include appeals and original proceedings handled by a regional office. The partial service category refers to cases that are not brought to a final disposition. These include conflicts of interest, other withdrawals because a defendant retained private counsel or went pro se, and situations where a client fails to appear. In order to be opened and subsequently counted as a partial service closing there must be client contact and a specific action taken with respect to the client. Revocations constitute the biggest percent Other Proceedings, representing 56.8 percent of the total in FY 2017-18.

FY 1999‐00 FY 2012‐13 FY 2013‐14 FY 2014‐15 FY 2015‐16 FY 2016‐17 FY 2017‐18

Annual CRG Through FY 2017‐18

Total Closed Cases 64,779       97,872       110,044     124,416     129,764     136,321     141,511     4.4%

Trial and Pretrial 33,824       53,146       55,883       66,413       71,226       74,615       76,488       4.6%Portion of Total Cases 52.2% 54.3% 50.8% 53.4% 54.9% 54.7% 54.1%

Other Proceedings 30,955       44,726       54,161       58,003       58,538       61,706       65,023       4.2%Portion of Total Cases 47.8% 45.7% 49.2% 46.6% 45.1% 45.3% 45.9%

OSPD Cases ClosedTrial and Pretrial & Other Proceedings

Page 19: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

17

MISCELLANEOUS HEARINGS As a result of H.B. 13-1210, the Rothgery bill, and H.B. 14-1032, the Juvenile Defense bill, OSPD began tracking the number of both felony and misdemeanor advisement/bond hearings along with juvenile detention hearings. These stats are shown separately below and are not included in the Other Proceedings.

Advisement/Bond Hearings and Juvenile Detention Hearings

REGIONAL TRIAL OFFICE CASELOAD CASE WITHDRAWAL TRENDS Partial services includes cases in which the OSPD is requesting to withdraw from a case due to conflicts of interest and for non-conflict reasons, such as private counsel enters or defendants deciding to go pro se. Since OSPD began tracking case withdrawals 18 years ago, the withdrawal rate has consistently remained at approximately 10 percent. Conflict Withdrawals. As seen in the chart below, the OSPD averages a 7 percent withdrawal rate on new cases due to a conflict of interest. A ‘conflict of interest’ occurs in situations where the Office represents a codefendant or a person who is a witness in the case, or other circumstances as identified in the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.

FY16 FY17 FY18FY19 ‐ proj

Advisement/Bond, Felony 29,315     35,904     38,567     39,959    Advisement/Bond, Misdemeanor 31,173     33,818     35,462     36,526    Juvenile Detention Hearings 3,973       4,006       3,625       3,657      

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18Average

FY13-FY18New Cases 98,537 115,107 126,947 132,388 137,777 143,552

ConflictsCo-Defendant 3,930 3,835 4,245 4,298 4,637 4,386

Witness 2,795 3,077 3,624 4,323 4,604 5,112 Other 470 549 668 720 913 1,074 Total 7,195 7,461 8,537 9,341 10,154 10,572

% of New Cases 7.3% 6.5% 6.7% 7.1% 7.4% 7.4% 7.0%

Non-ConflictsPrivate Counsel 2,143 2,646 2,762 2,636 2,553 2,447

Pro Se 333 332 537 540 482 491 Other 424 590 702 889 963 960 Total 2,900 3,568 4,001 4,065 3,998 3,898

% of New Cases 2.9% 3.1% 3.2% 3.1% 2.9% 2.7% 3.0%

Total 10,095 11,029 12,538 13,406 14,152 14,470 % of New Cases 10.2% 9.6% 9.9% 10.1% 10.3% 10.1% 10.0%

OSPD WithdrawalsFY13-FY18

Page 20: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

18

APPELLATE DIVISION CASELOAD APPELLATE CASE TRENDS Appellate Cases. The Office of the State Public Defender maintains a centralized Appellate Division (the Division) that represents clients in felony appeals from every jurisdiction in the state, regardless of who may have represented them in prior court proceedings (e.g., court appointed counsel, Alternate Defense Counsel and private attorneys). The Division is expected to carry 1,067 cases this year (FY 2018-19), including an estimated 528 new cases and 539 backlog cases carried over from previous years. This 1,067 number represents those cases where an opening brief is expected to be filed and is the phase during which the most resources are required. After the brief is filed, the case remains active as it progresses through the entire appellate process. The Division estimates there are currently 820 cases at various stages within this process and the work involved extends well into subsequent years. Since FY 1999-00, the total of new appellate cases had grown steadily before peaking in FY 2008-09, leveling off for a few years and even dropping in recent years. However, we project that the number of new appellate cases will again start to rise as the filing of appeals typically lags a couple years behind the trends experienced in the OSPD’s overall felony case filings. In FY 2013-14, the number of backlog cases (those awaiting an opening brief) peaked at 749. The following year, the Division received additional FTEs and funding to help lower this number. Over the past four years, the Division has been able to reduce this backlog to 539, yet it still exceeds the NLADA acceptable standards by 188 cases at the end of FY 2017-18. Although the Division has reduced its backlog cases, this downward trend will be interrupted if there is a surge in the number of new appeals filed as mentioned above. In addition, reductions may also be hampered due to the substantial increase in the record length for each case, which has doubled in recent years. This has a direct impact on the time and resources required to prepare an opening brief. The Division also received two additional FTE and funding in FY 2014-15 to assist and centralize the appellate process for both county court and juvenile appeals. This past year these FTE consulted or worked on over 283 cases, handled roughly 100 queries from juvenile attorneys in the trial offices, and held numerous statewide trainings enabling trial offices to achieve improved administrative efficiencies as well as increased representational effectiveness.

Appellate Division

FISCAL YEAR

Total Atty FTE

New Appeals

Briefs Filed

Appeals Resolved

Other Ways

Total Appeals Closed

Appeals awaiting filing of

initial brief

Standard Caseload per

NLADA

'Backlog' Appeals in excess of NLADA

standards

Change in Backlog in

Excess

Appeals Phase 2 (after initial

brief filed)

Total Active

Appeals

FY 13 34.75 585 427 135 562 671 315 356 39 848 1931FY 14 35.75 573 367 127 495 749 279 470 114 1000 2341

FY 15 47.25 533 422 122 544 738 363 375 -95 985 2282

FY 16 47.25 511 486 141 627 622 359 263 -112 1049 2234

FY 17 47.25 525 459 101 560 587 351 236 -27 879 2196

FY 18 47.25 523 421 150 571 539 351 188 -48 820 1989

FY 19 Est. 47.25 528 451 129 581 486 351 136 -53 850 1887FY 20 Est. 47.25 534 451 131 582 438 351 87 -49 850 1870

FY 21 Est. 47.25 539 451 132 583 393 351 43 -45 850 1827

FY 22 Est. 47.25 544 451 133 585 353 351 2 -40 850 1788

Page 21: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

19

FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 (actual) (actual) (projected) (projected) (projected)

MEASURE 1: Target 137,652 141,907 148,664 153,994 159,552

Number of new trial court cases. Actual 137,777 143,552

MEASURE 2: Target 173,612 181,112 189,075 195,295 202,978

Number of active trial court cases. Actual 175,873 183,078

MEASURE 3: Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Percent of trial court attorney staff allocated vs. total required for closed trial court cases.

Actual 83% 80%

MEASURE 4: Target 500 475 485 485 485

Number of attorney applications received. Actual 483 521

MEASURE 5: Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Percent of total attorney staff allocated vs. total required for closed trial court cases and appellate cases.

Actual 83% 81%

MEASURE 6: Target 12% 12% 12% 12% 12%

Annual rates of attrition:

Attorneys Actual 14% 18%

Investigators Actual 12% 8%

Administrative Assistants Actual 17% 24%

Total All Employees Actual 13% 16%

MEASURE 7: Target 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% Percent of experienced, fully capable staff (journey level or higher):

Attorneys Actual 46% 43%

Investigators Actual 55% 49%

Legal Assistants Actual 48% 43%

Total All Employees Actual 49% 46%

MEASURE 8: Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Percent compliance with minimum standards for total staffing requirements.

Actual 82% 81%

MEASURE 9: Target 12% 12% 12% 12% 12%

Maintain established standard percentages for reasonable staff supervision, management and development.

Actual 8% 11%

MEASURE 10: Target 558 535 528 534 539

Number of new appellate cases. Actual 525 523

MEASURE 11: Target 2,229 2,001 1,887 1,870 1,827

Number of active appellate cases. Actual 2,196 1,989

MEASURE 12: Target 2,229 2,001 1,887 1,870 1,827

Percent of appellate attorney staff allocated vs. total required for appellate cases awaiting filing of initial brief.

Actual 2,196 1,989

Performance

Page 22: FINAL SMART Act, due 070119 · 1. Hire a sufficient number of high quality staff and retain an adequate level of experienced staff in order to effectively manage the assigned caseload

20

FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 (actual) (actual) (projected) (projected) (projected)

MEASURE 13: Target 134,266 140,395 145,909 150,461 155,183

Number of trial court cases closed. Actual 136,321 141,511

MEASURE 14: Target 130 130 133 133 133

Days of training provided. Actual 179 135

MEASURE 15: Target 15 15 15 15 15 Number of CLE credits provided to all attorneys.

Actual 15 15

MEASURE 16: Target 3 3 3 3 3 Hours of ethics training provided, focusing on Colorado criminal law.

Actual 3 4

MEASURE 17: Target 15 15 15 15 15 Number of administrative processes and organizational infrastructure evaluations performed.

Actual 14 15

MEASURE 18: Target 486 468 451 451 451

Number of appellate cases for which an Opening Brief has been filed.

Actual 459 421

MEASURE 19: Target 563 531 486 438 393

Number of backlogged appellate cases. Actual 587 539

The OSPD’s Performance Plan dated July 01, 2019 can be viewed on our website at www.coloradodefenders.us.